MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600247197 · doi:10.1111/jwas.12417

Dietary Protein and Lipid Requirements for Juvenile Largemouth Bass, <i>Micropterus salmoides</i>

2017· article· en· W2600247197 on OpenAlexaff
Di Huang, Yubo Wu, Ya‐Yun Lin, Jianming Chen, Niel A. Karrow, Xing Ren, Yan Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the World Aquaculture Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersZhejiang University
KeywordsMicropterusBass (fish)BiologyJuvenileWeight gainFeed conversion ratioFactorial experimentAnimal scienceDietary proteinProtein efficiency ratioFood scienceBody weightBiochemistryFisheryEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A feeding trial was conducted to evaluate dietary protein and lipid requirements for juvenile largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides . A 4 × 2‐factorial layout included four protein (420, 450, 480, and 510 g/kg) and two lipid (80 and 120 g/kg) levels. Fish (initial weight 8.7 g) were fed the test diets for 8 wk. Weight gain, feed intake, feed conversion ratio, hepatosomatic index, and body composition were dependent on dietary protein level. Nitrogen retention efficiency was independent of dietary protein level, lipid level, and their interaction. Weight gain was higher in fish fed the diet containing 480–510 g/kg crude protein than in fish fed the diet containing 420–450 g/kg crude protein at two dietary lipid levels. The feed intake and weight gain were higher in fish fed the diet containing 484 g/kg crude protein and 115 g/kg crude lipid than in fish fed the diet containing 478 g/kg crude protein and 77 g/kg crude lipid. This study indicated that the suitable dietary protein and lipid levels for largemouth bass are 480–510 g/kg and 120 g/kg, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations125
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the World Aquaculture SocietySame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207